Ah ha! Finally an admission. Wonder if anyone will believe it or will they
continue with algore's mantra?

A large portion of this "climate data" has been quoted as being from NASA.
I have a damned little faith in their ability to forecast weather when they
usually require multiple attempts to get a launch completed on their
schedule. Yet they're qualified to tell the world what causes weather
changes?

On Mon, 15 Feb 2010 05:30:04 -0500, Hachiroku wrote:

And if they do, it could be argued he always was a k00k...

On Sun, 14 Feb 2010 19:39:20 -0800, ron wrote:

Nah, the good Professor has not entered k00k status.
Ironic, isn't it?

And even more so now that Obungler has 'clipped their wings' and grounded
them. There are something like 6 more space flights, no replacement for
the shuttle, and they're stuck on the ground. Guess they'll have to hitch
rides with the Russians.

Who elected this Bozo? He's beginning to make CARTER look good, never mind
Clinton!

In message <pan.2010.02.15.10.30.04.125000 (AT) e86 (DOT) GTS>, Hachiroku
<Trueno (AT) e86 (DOT) GTS> writes
--
Clive

Conscience wrote:
You might want to do a little research before making this false claim. A
good place to start would be the BBC. The Daily Mail referenced an
interview with the BBC. So what does the original source say?

Answer: "He [Jones] said he stood by the view that recent climate
warming was most likely predominantly man-made."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8511701.stm

Pity the deniers. They stand behind their beliefs to the detriment of all.

Jeff

Conscience wrote:
When I show that your article is wrong, that the best you can do.

ROTFL

Jeff

In message <4bOdnYTP1I6QoeTWnZ2dnUVZ_sSdnZ2d (AT) giganews (DOT) com>, dr_jeff
<utz (AT) msu (DOT) edu> writes
--
Clive

On Mon, 15 Feb 2010 07:20:35 -0500, dr_jeff wrote:

Likewise, I'm sure. However, there is a lot more evidence the warming
trend right now is not caused by humans, but that just gets buried,
doesn't it?

"dr_jeff" <utz (AT) msu (DOT) edu> wrote

What does "most likely" "predominately" man-made mean?



Can you quantify the percentage on most likely? is it 51%,or 99%
likely?



And what does predominately mean? Is gloabl warming 51% or 99%
"man-made"?



For that matter, what does "man-made" mean?



Seems like a lot of room to quibble over. 10 years from now he can
always say he wasn't 100% sure, but by then economies all over the
world could be in ruin based on the chages instituted in the name of
reducing "man-made global warming."



I have two main problems the current global warming hysteria -



1) The pro-gloabl warming scientists are massaging highly suspect data
and using it in highly unreliable predictive models to make precise
predictions of the future. This can't work. It is about the same as
gazing into a crystal ball. Trying to make data fit a theory happens
all the time. It is always a bad idea. It is clear there is a lot of
data adjsutment needed for the climate data used in these studies. I
am not confident the adjsutments are always done in a manner
consistent with the best principals of science.



2) Even if the global warming alarmists are right, is global warming
really a bad thing? If you institute the sort of changes demanded by
the global warming alarmists, there will be significant dislocations
in economies - there will be winners and losers in the immediate
future. If we ignore the global warming alarmist, and they turn out to
be right, there will also be winners and losers - but probably over a
much broader time scale. So, who has the right to decide that one set
of winners is better than another and who has the right to say we
should force certain people to be losers today, so that other might be
winners in the future?



I see many of the Global Warming Alarmists as a bunch of modern day
Luddites. They aren't being rational. Other interests are trying to
use the fear of Global Warming as a tool to force changes they want to
make for other reasons. I suppose they feel the ends justify the
means, but I don't, at least not in this case.



Ed

Clive wrote:
In English, you're grasping straws. Unlike you, he actually knows what
he is talking about.